Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tdog

David Reed Fumble Recovery

70 posts in this topic

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's [/font][/size][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font][/size]
13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of all calls to complain about, you seem to be complaining about a pretty obvious call to me.

He didn't have control of the ball, and he was out of bounds. The forced fumble was nice, and David Reed almost got it. But he didn't. The camera angles were clear. It wasn't one of those "well... we didn't have indisputable evidence" cases. It was clear. He didn't get the ball in bounds.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tdog' timestamp='1355156482' post='1255296']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery.[/b] It's [/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font]
[/quote]

Guess everybody has a different interpretation. I read the same rule above and saw the play and think it was the right call.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont like the rule, just because the ball moved a tiny bit does not mean he didnt possess it. He grabbed it in bounds and never lost control of it, I think that shouldve been our ball.

If he grabbed it the same way but then it hit the ground or popped into the air a litte and not just move around in his arms like it did then, yes, it wasnt a recovery, but he had it in his arms the whole time. Like i said, I dont like the rule.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO the interception and the stripped fumble were the killers....they were moving the ball fairly well on both possesions.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355172369' post='1256398']
David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.
[/quote]

He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='T3hRaven' timestamp='1355172449' post='1256400']
He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid [b]AND FRAGILE[/b].
[/quote]
Had to add to that. That would have ENDED the game...but NO<><><>
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Twistidfunk' timestamp='1355172369' post='1256398']
David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.
[/quote]

You guys Blaming Reed for the the Fumble is downright Comical.

Your right though, he should have defied the laws of physics and nature and somehow stopped his momentum from taking him out a bounds. While he's at it, he sould have fired up his magic 8 ball and known the ball was going to be fumbled at that spot at that time.

Lets not blame Defense for blown coverages, Flacco for making rookie mistakes like always, or recievers from running poor routes and dropping the ball like usual.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nk02442' timestamp='1355176019' post='1256513']
It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.
[/quote]

He actually has been all over the place, flying around (agree there), but the recovery was definitely recovered out of bounds.

Go Cundiff!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive been really impressed with Reed since hes come back, hes a pretty good special teamer. On that play he did exactly what you're coached to do, fall on it, dont try and pick it up. You cant put any blame on him there
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for all your Reed haters, last week against the Steelers he had 2 tackles on punts for a net gain of -3 yards. Also had a tackle assist on another. Key reason the dangerous Antonio Brown was kept in check. In fact they had 9 yards on 5 attempts with a long of 6.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all what the H? Yeah, I am not fond of David Reed. I blamed him for the Seahawks loss in 2011. He has also proven to be injury-prone. He also had that stupid suspension for flushing drugs down the toilet, too. I mean let's face it: he has done some really dumb things.

With that said, I can't blame him for anything since he returned. He has played well. He did a good job. He tried to recover the fumble. Give the man credit for actually being near the ball, recognizing the fumble and actually trying to get the ball rather than watch it go out of bounds. He tried. That's all I can ask.

People are being too hard on him.
6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tdog -

Very well stated! When refs win and lose games instead of the players, it's disgusting and takes all the fun out of the games. Gee, I wonder who had how much money on this one ...... hmmmmm.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tctony' timestamp='1355179255' post='1256623']
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
[/quote]
Agreed, we were screwed and it is not the first time this season where the refs cost us a game. We were screwed during the Eagles game also on that Jacoby Jones TD.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tctony' timestamp='1355179255' post='1256623']
I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.
[/quote]

Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Tdog' timestamp='1355156482' post='1255296']
[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the [u]NFL Rulebook[/u]: Player Possession- it states[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Link- [url="http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/6_Rule3_Definitions.pdf"]http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf[/url][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's [/font][/size][size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.[/font][/size]
[/quote]


Am I missing something here? In reading notes 2 and 3 it sounds like a perfect description of what occurred and should have been a recovery. Reed did not lose control of the ball. There was slight movement and the ball never touched the ground. Correct?
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180114' post='1256649']


Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
[/quote]


Did it touch the ground? I didn't think so. But if it did that would constitute "losing possession". If not, I think it has to be a good recovery.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Mt. Crushmore' timestamp='1355176927' post='1256553']
Just for all your Reed haters, last week against the Steelers he had 2 tackles on punts for a net gain of -3 yards. Also had a tackle assist on another. Key reason the dangerous Antonio Brown was kept in check. In fact they had 9 yards on 5 attempts with a long of 6.
[/quote]

Nice.. a special teams player that is either injured/suspended/benched. Valuable guy...
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='awholelottahaloti' timestamp='1355180273' post='1256655']



Did it touch the ground? I didn't think so. But if it did that would constitute "losing possession". If not, I think it has to be a good recovery.
[/quote]

Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time :(
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180114' post='1256649']
Correct in the fact that it never left his heads, but he gained full control of the ball while out of bounds. Its the movement the ball had while in his grasp. Unfortunately, correct call.
[/quote]

Full control is subjective and that call could have went either way. He had the possitive possestion inbounds, how long does he need to hold it, how much can the ball move, what happens when your points of contact are all already on the ground? On the field call gave us the ball and there was not enough to overturn it. I guess the inrefutable evidence threshold can change game to game as well?


There is no consitiancy in offiating in this league and thats one of the things that makes it so hard to watch. In my opinion, take away all subjective penalties (PI/HOLDING/Illegal contact) and let the men fight it out like the old days.


In the end, No one should be blaming David Reed for that play. He did everything he could to get us the ball, and has nothing to be ashamed of.
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='1/28/01' timestamp='1355180883' post='1256692']


Sorry, doesnt need to touch the ground. Ball moving while sliding out of bounds = no possession every time :(
[/quote]


Hmmmm..... Not that it matters at this point, but it seems that note 3(2 and 1 as well) support a recovery. I would think anything other than a slight movement would mean he lost contact with the ball. It wasn't like he was juggling it, it almost looked as though he shifted it in his hands always maintaining contact and control as defined. According to the rule, it seems he maintained possession.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites